Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results

Expand Messages
  • Joe Klovance
    In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

      If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

      Gryffyd
      > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
      > From: pickette@...
      > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
      >
      > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
      >
      > JoO
      > Calontir
      >

    • arion12@q.com
      The results look pretty clear to me as to what is the first choice - let s skip the statistical analysis and move forward with a Treaty. Arion the Wanderer ...
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        The results look pretty clear to me as to what is the first choice - let's skip the statistical analysis and move forward with a Treaty.

        Arion the Wanderer


        From: "Christopher LoPresto" <thlaleyn@...>
        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:04:48 PM
        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Poll results

        Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but...

        I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll to not rank an option that the voter would not choose under ANY circumstance.  (Maybe this WAS an option in the poll and I just don't remember...).

        In other words, it should have been made clear in the poll description that votes might be 'transferred' and an option given to give any of the available choices a non-rank.  Some people may have a 1 and 2 choice that they are comfortable with, but their 3, 4, and 5 choices may fall into that category of not wanting these choices at all.  These folks may not want their #4 choice used to bolster an option that they were really opposed to.

        My two point five cents worth... :-)

        [Just to be clear... I applaud the effort to run the poll and get to a consensus, but I'm against massaging the data in the manner described.]

        Many thanks,
        Aleyn





        On 3 Jul 2012, at 18:25, Joe Klovance wrote:


        In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

        If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

        Gryffyd
        > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
        > From: pickette@...
        > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
        > 
        > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
        > 
        > JoO
        > Calontir
        > 



      • Christopher LoPresto
        Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but... I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but...

          I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll to not rank an option that the voter would not choose under ANY circumstance.  (Maybe this WAS an option in the poll and I just don't remember...).

          In other words, it should have been made clear in the poll description that votes might be 'transferred' and an option given to give any of the available choices a non-rank.  Some people may have a 1 and 2 choice that they are comfortable with, but their 3, 4, and 5 choices may fall into that category of not wanting these choices at all.  These folks may not want their #4 choice used to bolster an option that they were really opposed to.

          My two point five cents worth... :-)

          [Just to be clear... I applaud the effort to run the poll and get to a consensus, but I'm against massaging the data in the manner described.]

          Many thanks,
          Aleyn





          On 3 Jul 2012, at 18:25, Joe Klovance wrote:


          In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

          If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

          Gryffyd
          > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
          > From: pickette@...
          > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
          > 
          > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
          > 
          > JoO
          > Calontir
          > 



        • Joe Klovance
          I have posted the STV manipulated poll, Archery poll.xls in the files section of the Yahoo group, and a few interesting results came out.1. There is a
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I have posted the STV manipulated poll, "Archery poll.xls" in the files section of the Yahoo group, and a few interesting results came out.
            1. There is a majority for "Treaty" but not quite a super majority and it took eliminating all but 2 options to get to a majority.
            2. Even with removing 3 of 5 options over 82% got their first or second option.
            3. Only 2% went to the fourth option.

            I agree that it would have been better if it was clear that one did not have to rank all options. It could have been done so some options could have been left blank. Survey Monkey does not do this well as it can not check that a higher rank is used before a lower rank is used. For example, someone could have voted 2, ,4, ,5. That would require a first pass to normalize the data so that a vote like that would come out 1, ,2, ,3 as that is the priority order.

            Having said that I believe that the poll even after the STV manipulation has a valid result.

            Gryffyd
          • Hugh Prescott
            In other words Reducto Abservium Hugh
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              In other words  "Reducto Abservium"

              Hugh
               




            • Ld.blackmoon
              greetings ... lol, sounds like a new diet pill : ) Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun . Arthur ... From: Hugh Prescott To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com Sent:
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                greetings
                 
                >>"Reducto Abservium"<<
                 lol, sounds like a new diet pill : )
                 
                Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun .
                Arthur
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:57 PM
                Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Poll results

                 


                In other words  "Reducto Abservium"

                Hugh
                 




                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5091 - Release Date: 06/24/12
                Internal Virus Database is out of date.

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.